"Let us say the vote is truly representative of the wishes of the people in Crimea, that the margin of vote is true, and there was no coercion."

And let us say the other 29 teams in Major League baseball will all come down with a case of influenza this season, and thus the New York Mets will finally win the World Series!

Why not, if we're just plucking random and unsubstantial suppositions out of the air?

Again, Socrates, NO WAY does any election, anywhere have a *95% RATIO!*

I can't assume that's "representative of the wishes of the people of Crimea" when it's not even attempting to be plausibly representative of the actions of people PERIOD!

95% doesn't happen, and it CERTAINLY doesn't happen on a matter which is no more or less than "Would you like to secede, join another country and very possibly risk a civil war in doing so""

How can we even begin to assume a 95% vote is representative of a legitimate response to such a volatile, complex and divisive question???

"Do you/the west then accept the result as legitimate, or do you try and find another reason to reject the referendum?"

1. We don't need another reason, that vote ISN'T legitimate...95%. A charade and a poor one at that, if they wanted it to be believable, they could have at least made it a closer illegitimate election.

2. Crimea seceding is reason enough for me, especially when it's seceding to Russia and not only breaking up a country, but strengthening a power the West has no reason to see strengthened...hence why this whole mess has come so far, if the West was OK with closer Ukrainian-Russian ties and Russia OK with closer Ukrainian-Western ties, we'd all be happy and home by now...but that's not the case. It's a zero-sum game, someone's going to win and someone's going to lose, and Vladimir Putin thinks he can score another win over the West right now and increase Russian might and influence both in his own massive sphere as well as on the world stage and, for the moment--that's a damn good bet from where he's sitting. What's the West going to do? He clearly doesn't care about sanctions, and between Kosovo, Iraq and staunchly anti-war populations, unless atrocities were committed, we'd likely have no chance of intervention (and even then there's a chance we'd let it go...look at Syria...I *STILL* say we should have intervened there, if not out of principle than out of political interest and to keep Putin from expanding influence there as well.)

Either Crimea will join Russia amid scandal and sanctions and the West will be the worse for it, or there will be a Civil War and we may perhaps arm Ukraine (as they're asking) but even then...with the Neo-Nazi element (minority force though it is, it's still present and still as big an issue as the Al-Qaeda elements were when we were thinking of arming Syrian rebels) even that's in question.

There's ample proof that Russian forces invaded Crimea prior to this referendum, that this referendum was called and voted on too quickly, that the ballot was a false dilemma that didn't represent the wishes of a lot of Crimean residents, and that large numbers of Crimean residents fled to escape violence prior to the referendum, SD. That's more than enough to conclude that this 95% margin is bullshit.

The sanitized question you're asking is completely irrelevant because without the Russian bluster and invasion there would never have been a referendum on Crimea in the first place. But yes, if the Crimeans had out of nowhere decided to hold a referendum accepting Russian annexation and it had been passed in a legitimate vote, Crimea would then justifiably be annexed into Russia.

The result of a legitimate vote would stll have been in excess of 85% in favour, so I don't see what purpose you have denouncing the vote as illegitimate.

Tartars and pro-Ukranians have admitted to boycotting the vote, meaning that they were underrepresented at a mere 3%. There has been no evidence of intimidation at the voting stations.

In short this is just a attempt to legitimise what was already known; that Crimea is Russian as much as the Falklands are British

"He'll just say that the wishes of the Crimeans were honoured."

Irrelevant. Putin33 said: "No one is going to annex anyone."

He was very sure about this. If Russia decides to give Crimea what they want, Putin33 was plain simply wrong.

You can no more say Russia invaded the Crimea than you can say the US has invaded South Korea. Russian forces were largely already in it when the crisis developed and I have seen little evidence that more troops are present than agreed by the Ukrainian government previously.

Were the people of Crimea calling out for a referendum before? Probably not many were, but that was back when the Crimeans were secure in the knowledge that they lived in a democracy and could vote for a President who would fight for a Ukraine that they approved of.

What we have seen in the past month or so is that Western Ukraine doesn't give a shit about what they want. That what Kiev says goes, and that even if their man wins the election it won't matter because the majority in Kiev will just drive him out. The sudden realisation that you are powerless in your own country is more than enough motivation to make you think jumping ship may actually be a dammed good idea.

Was the referendum free and fair? No.

Does the result of the referendum reflect the will of the majority of the people despite this? Yes

Is Russia using every trick in the book to get its own way? Definitely, but this is no different to what the West did in Syria. I dare say Putin is enjoying himself tremendously and sees it, at least in part, as payback.

"You can no more say Russia invaded the Crimea than you can say the US has invaded South Korea"

Erm, they did.

So, obi, you have decided a priori that the referendum is not valid, and are refusing to answer the question, because it goes against your metaphysical truth - that an election that has 95% votes one way can't be valid. I'll bear that in mind.

At least PE somewhat tried to answer the question (in his obtuse way). PE - the fact that you are using the word invasion marks out your biased opinion (in my humble opinion), and I doubt the Crimean people would have voted this way out of nowhere - it probably comes from the anti-democratic coup in kiev, and the worrying measures they are trying to get through.

You guys pretend to love democracy, but when a vote doesn't go your way you try and excuse it. I would laugh if the hypocrisy wasn't so frequent.

@ SYnapse

The Russians were based in Crimea at Ukraine's agreement long before the crisis. The Russian troop movements recently have been welcomed by the local government and the Ukraine President. Invasion it ain't.

If your "Erm, they did" comment was more in reference to the US in South Korea, I was talking about the present day rather than historic activity. The US activity in Korea in the mid 20th Century is a different debate.

Oh, I was talking abotu S Korea. Definite invasion.

i think it is interesting that nobody mentioned the wording of the question yet (maybe someone did and i didn't see it). returning to ukraine wasn't even an option.

@ kasimax

Octavious "The question alone is enough to cause concern"

Goldfinger "the "No" option isn't even on the ballot"

President Eden "the ballot was a false dilemma that didn't represent the wishes of a lot of Crimean residents"

Do read harder, old chap ;)

Referendums work best with two options, so as to best express the general will ;). The options were to remain as they are (a new state seperate of Ukraine by itself), or to join with Russia. I don't see what is wrong with that. The idea of joining back with Ukraine should have been up for discussion if the people rejected joining with Russia, but they didn't, so that's that problem nullified.

I just wanted to say that I thought it was interesting that nobody mentioned the wording of the question yet.

Has anyone mentioned the wording of the question? That's interesting.

It's interesting that noone has mentioned Russian forces being in crimea yet

slowpoke.jpg

"remain as they are (a new state seperate of Ukraine by itself)"

That's a fucked up option. If there had to be 2 options, they should've been staying with Ukraine or joining Russia.

They can't rely on theirselves and that's why the referendum presents no real option.

why is it a fucked up option dear steephie? is independence not acceptable? should kosovo be compelled to join one of serbia and albania, or would you allow independance if that is what they wished? it is nonsensical to say that crimea should not have the option to be its own state.

The area declared itself independant. Why should that not have been an option? I think it is fucked up to say that shouldn't be an option!

Well, I would recommend at least 3 options to solve that problem, possibly followed by a new referendum with the two options most voted for.

I think independence isn't an option simply because even if they declare themselves independent, they're only independent by name. In reality, they still have to pick a side or get screwed... Right?

well, it certainly has been mentioned, i get that, thanks ;)

it simply was dismissed by every pro-referendum poster. i think this point alone makes the referendum meaningless.

referendums with 3 options generally struggle more - ideally you have 1 option (e.g. join russia), and another which is dissenting (i.e. don't join russia - stay independant or join back with ukraine).

don't be a slave to pragmatism! a nation always has the choice of freedom, self-determination is the right of the people of Crimea! what is right should always trump expedient concerns!

@kasimax, i feel that the way people are painting the two choices is not magnanimous, to say the least - there were two distinct options, one to not join with russia and one to join. the country just declared itself independent, to rejoin with ukraine would be a superfluous option, only worth consideration if the people did not want to join with russia.

So they should have done it in two steps. First vote for dependence/independence and then possibly for Russia or Ukraine.

With such a resounding vote to join Russia it seems another differing referendum would have been superfluous!

@ steephie

Why? The vote would have been declared illegal by Kiev no matter how they went about it, and even if not the boycotts would have been enough to fuel the calls of illegitimacy from the EU et al.

The vote achieved all that it needed to do. Show the world that an awful lot of people in the Crimea want to be part of Russia.

@Obi - just for the record the Falklands had a referendum with above 95% voting for the status quo. I accept that this (crimea's) referendum was a long of being free and fair and transparent, but I think everyone accepts that the result was never in doubt - it hardly matters if 51% or 95% of the population want to join Russia, if thats what they want we (the west) should be looking at how to give them what they want rather than seeking to follow our own objectives and dismissing the population's opinion if it doesn't suit us.

We also can't pick and choose which illegal actions we condemn and which we support. I keep hearing that the referendum is illegal because it wasn't done in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution, neither was the recent coup, but we accepted that quickly enough.

@ obiwanobiwan: "Why not, if we're just plucking random and unsubstantial suppositions out of the air?"

What, like you're doing?

@Maniac - if I have a gun to my head and told you that I really, really would like to hand Socrates all of my life's savings, would you respect my wishes? The Russian war games, troop reinforcements, "pro-Russian militias", blockading of Ukrainian armed forces, etc, etc. These are not the conditions to hold a referendum in. As President Eden said, I'm pretty sure the referendum would have never taken place without Russia's armed forces stepping in.

Now, had the referendum been held under fair conditions, it is very likely that 51% of the population would have voted to join Russia. My protest of the referendum isn't of the outcome, it's of the process. The 97% or whatever margin that joining Russia had is evidence that the process is flawed, imo

Good god...who cares, really. Is anyone willing to send soldiers from your country to war over this? If not...then shut the fuck up.

Two options existed:
1. Ukraine could have built and supported a military strong enough to protect against a known-aggressive neighbor. they didn't.
2. Ukraine can just deal with it...who the fuck cares...now some people that used the be encompassed by an imaginary geo-political line that said "Ukraine" now are encompassed by a line that says "Russia". Tomorrow, most of them will go to work like they did yesterday, whether they are Russian or Ukrainian. Tomorrow, parents in Crimea will hopefully love their children, regardless of their government. Who teh fuck cares. Shut up about it already...unless YOU are willing to die over some bullshit border dispute.

"it wasn't done in accordance with the Ukrainian constitution, neither was the recent coup"

The "recent coup" was neither a coup nor illegal. The members of the President's party defected en masse to the opposition (perfectly legal to change one's political view) and they voted to impeach him for ordering violence against peaceful protests, also in accordance with Ukrainian law.